NCGA Net Score Database
Seven years ago I was assigned a heady task — build a mousetrap that will identify those golfers who perform really, really well in NCGA net and Team Match events — maybe too well.
It seemed that the same faces and same clubs were showing up in the winner’s circle year after year and that winning net scores were becoming more and more preposterous. Our member clubs were hot, they were letting us hear it and they were demanding action.
In response, the most ambitious program of its kind was launched in 2004, the NCGA Net Score Database.
The program has seen many changes since its inception, mostly the result of trial and error. At its core, however, the program remains remarkably simple, unbiased and wrapped in sound handicapping fundamentals. Here is how it works.
Every round recorded by every NCGA member in an NCGA event played with handicap is logged. And I mean every round by every NCGA member beginning at the regional qualifying stage. NCGA gross events and club events are excluded from review. The current database, consisting of scores from the three most recent seasons, includes 17,000+ players and 76,000+ scores.
Each individual round within the database is posed a question. Did the golfer play to or better than their handicap that day? If “yes,” how far below their handicap?
The first law of handicapping holds that a golfer will only play to their handicap once every five rounds or so. Many golfers refuse to believe this statistic, but proof is just a couple of keystrokes away. At any point in time, look up your current Handicap Index and inspect the 20 rounds that went into the calculation. Count the number of differentials among the 20 that are lower than the Index you were issued for the month. At all handicap levels you will typically only find four rounds that qualify.
Another indisputable truth of handicapping is that golfers, on average, actually score about three strokes above their handicap. Due to the rarity of scoring well below one’s handicap, stage two of our review consists of applying USGA-established odds to every round that scored a “yes” in step one. The lower the score, the higher the odds.
The third step in the process consists of looking at the entire body of NCGA net scores for a given individual. We count the number of “yes” versus “no” rounds and weigh this with the odds for the good scores. If our final tally exceeds certain thresholds, we take action in the form of assigning a “number” that the golfer will be required to play to in all NCGA handicap events that season (our number, or their current Handicap Index, whichever is lower). This number in no way, shape or form is to be confused with a Handicap Index nor does it impact the Handicap Index issued to the golfer each month. The club that the golfer is a member of is the one and only authority that can adjust a Handicap Index.
How many golfers are impacted by our action? Less than 1.5% of 17,000+ golfers in 2009.
There are some obvious drawbacks to our program.
One, the system is reactive. Our action can only take place after the low net scores have been recorded. A philosophy of “fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me” is the best we can hope to achieve.
Two, our analysis is only as good as the accuracy of the scores credited to the golfer. Accuracy is not in dispute in stroke-play events where an attested scorecard is involved, but it is a factor in Team Match.
Match play creates a number of unique scoring situations, most notably those involving concessions and unplayed holes when a match ends prior to the 18th hole.
You would be amazed at the number of people who seem to think that if you are conceded a 25-foot putt, you post the score for handicapping purposes as if you would have made the putt. How much sense would that make? No, you post the score you most likely would have made had the hole been completed.
Many also dispute the concept of posting par plus any handicap strokes they are entitled to for unplayed holes. No matter how well they are playing up to that point, many seem convinced that they would have scored worse than net pars had they played in. This is a difficult argument to make.
Then there are the frontal assault appeals.
“Of course I play better in tournaments, I practice a lot more for them.” Just once I would like someone to explain to me why the non-tournament round the day before and the day after didn’t likewise benefit from all this practice.
And last but not least, “of course I play better in tournaments, I concentrate more.” This one irritates me the most since it implies that the golfer just kind of goes through the motions for most rounds only to kick it into higher gear for important tournaments. They see nothing wrong with having their handicap based upon those rounds where they did not give it their best and then outperforming this handicap with ease and great regularity when the moment is right. It should go without saying that no golfer is entitled to such an advantage.
I have a simple philosophy when it comes to handicaps. Show me a golfer who can raise the level of their game at will in big tournaments, and I will show you a golfer with too high a handicap. Our Net Score Database program identifies and neutralizes such golfers.
If you would like to have your say, please post a comment below.
Jim: I don’t quite understand how a golfer can only shoot his handicap one in five rounds and have his (or her) handicap go anyway but up?
May 9th, 2009 at 4:17 pmClif
How is the average score that appears on each players handicap page on there local club computer calculated (e.g. 83.6). Is this the most current 20 rounds, rounds played in that calendar year, or those scores posted over a longer period of time.
Thank you
May 10th, 2009 at 3:56 pmClif, thank you for your comment. Remember, handicaps do not represent your “average” play, they represent your “potential” ability. They are based on the best 10 of your 20 most recent rounds meaning that your worst 10 rounds are thrown out entirely. And even among the ten best rounds that went into the computation, only four typically have differentials lower than the Handicap Index issued because of a 96% multiplier included in the math. For May, you actually had five rounds with differentials lower than the 8.4 that you were issued for the month. This is partly due to the fact that three of the differentials were just slightly lower (8.2). If you only played three rounds in May and all three were 80′s at your home course (9.2 differential), your Handicap Index would actually go down next month even though you played above your handicap each round. Why? Because these 80′s would replace 81′s among your best 10 of 20 rounds. I hope this answers your question – thanks again. Jim Cowan
May 15th, 2009 at 11:14 amDon, thank you for your e-mail. The score average displayed is based on the current calendar year. Thanks again – Jim Cowan
May 15th, 2009 at 11:24 amJim thank you for all the time and effort you have put into this much needed mousetrap. Is there any hope that the “number” given to the sandbagger could stay with him for several years.
May 19th, 2009 at 5:12 pmStan, thank you for your comment. Our database is constantly changing as new scores are added and old ones expire. Sadly, I would certainly expect some golfers to appear year after year, but the “number” we assign to them will probably vary a little bit each season. Thanks again – Jim Cowan
May 20th, 2009 at 3:10 pmSounds like a solid plan and well researched. I applaud the effort and support this!
I might however disagree with the idea that some shouldn’t play better in tournaments. I’ll cite TWoods 72 hole Torrey Pines 2008 U.S. Open. If Tiger was playing in a casual round with some buddies on a Thursday afternoon, he probably wouldn’t have made that putt. The fact that it was to tie for the U.S. open, and a must make situation, it went in. This is an extreme case, but there is truth to the notion that some ppl rise to pressure and their games are elevated. I only wish this would apply to myself. :( Personally, I think only tournament scores should make up one’s handicap. Posting should only be done by tournament scorekeepers not individuals. All other golf rounds should be inconsequential.
July 8th, 2009 at 2:32 pmSteve – thank you for your comment. Remember, a handicap is intended to represent a golfer’s “potential” ability. If a golfer is able to raise the level of his game in tournaments, his handicap should be closely alligned with these tournament scores, not the non-tournament scores where the golfer apparently is not properly motivated. As to the subject of using T-scores exclusively, I cannot see where it will ever happen. Most golfers do not play in formal tournaments or play in them seldomly. Suppose you have a golfer who plays in two tournaments a year. What is a better indicator of his potential ability, a tournament score from five or six years ago or a round of golf from last Saturday where he played with his buddies for a few bucks? I’ll take the recent score. Thanks again – Jim Cowan
July 13th, 2009 at 9:30 amWhat are the odds of a player shooting 3 or more under their handicap per year? Our club seems to have this happen way to often and the legit single digit handicappers have little to no chance of winning our all net events. Our club will not play anything gross as everyone has an established handicap. The 13 to 22 handicaps have this biggest advantage in our club. They always seem to play their best in our bigger events. Just as you mentioned in your article.
August 14th, 2009 at 6:41 pmJerry, thank you for your comment. The USGA estimates that the odds of teeing it up today and playing 3 strokes better than your handicap (differential is three strokes lower than Handicap Index) are 1 in 57 for 0-5 handicappers; 1 in 51 for 6-12 handicappers; 1 in 43 for 13-21; 1 in 23 for 22-30 and 1 in 15 for 31 and up. So if you are a 25-handicapper that posts 70 rounds a year, you could be expected to record such a score about three times a year. You can find the complete odds table at: http://www.ncga.org/2007/06/18/fit-to-a-t/
August 18th, 2009 at 10:36 amIn general, high handicappers still only play to their handicap around 1 in 5 rounds, but when they do, they can go lower. Most clubs recognize this and employ flights to spread out the competition and, thereby, not require the low to compete against the high directly in a net competition. Thanks again – Jim Cowan
Hi Jim,
I agree with the net database but I believe there are 3 errors in the calculations.
1. For players with restricted handicaps, their NCGA scores are compared against monthly index not against restricted index. That 1 or 2 stroke difference impacts the “YES” answer.
2. The net par for unfinished holes are based on restricted index and not the actual index.
3. For match play, its the 1-3 putts per rounds conceded from 6-8 foot range once the hole is decided – either you winning or losing the hole.
Thanks, Joel
October 14th, 2009 at 11:54 amJoel, thank you for your comment. Suppose the NCGA makes a golfer with a Handicap Index of 15 play to a 10 in our events based upon previous low scores in NCGA play. Suppose they record a differential of 12 in the round. We feel very strongly that it is important to record the round as a strike against the golfer. After all, if the NCGA action had not been in place the golfer would have recorded yet another score three strokes under his handicap. Secondly, what score a golfer posts for handicap purposes has nothing to do with our number, it is completely dictated by their Handicap Index. If the real Handicap Index would have generated a stroke on an unplayed hole whereas the NCGA does not, you would give yourself, for score posting purposes, a bogey on the hole. Lastly, you post the score you most likely would have made. If you normally make about half your 6-8 footers, you would probably award yourself one or two of the conceded putts based upon their difficulty. Thanks again – Jim Cowan
October 20th, 2009 at 9:03 amI am one that also believes that the handicap should reflect the tournament/club events posted scores the most. I play a lot of scratch events and have no problem with my competitors. I also belong to an associate club that seems to have the same winners much to often. They seem to score under their handicap too often. A for instance was this last Sat. at Roddy Ranch where 3 players scored net 65′s. I have suggested that our club have it’s own handicap system which reflects the scores we have for our tournaments. That would bring those guys in line.
January 24th, 2010 at 12:12 pmWe should be able to post scores that have the ability to be directed to a club handicap as well as a general handicap so that clubs can control there own.
I have been a team captain in NCGA Thursday Team Play for several years. Prior to being a captain I participated as a player for over 15 years. Every score posted in this format is posted as a tournament score. I have several issues with this line of thinking..
1. Unlike stoke play, match play is all about winning the hole. If your opponent is in trouble, you play the hole conservative. If your opponent ends up with a triple bogey, you are satisfied with a double. If you are down in the match you get more aggressive and do things you normally wouldn’t do in stroke play. There is an entirely different mindset in playing match play yet the results are blended with stroke play results and used to calculate tournament scores.
2. In match play when putts are conceded I have virtually never seen any competitor take what he thought he would get if he actually putted the ball. Who has a clue if he would have made the putt. Lets say a player is putting for bogey, and everyone is in with par so his putt doesn’t matter and they kick it back. That player records a bogey when he easily could have made a double. The same thing happens when a player is putting for par and his opponent is out of the hole and the team point is already secured. The opponent concedes the par putt when the player could have easily made bogey. This goes on for 18 holes leaving the adjusted scores of most competitors under what they actually should be.
NCGA Team play is a different cat in itself. How many times after the event is over and you are in the clubhouse having food and drink do you hear competitors say “I shot under my handicap and got killed”. Well actually Fred, you never shot under your handicap but all those conceded putts you took made it look like you did.
My personal opinion is that NCGA match play and stroke play tournament scores should be separated and accounted for in a different manner. I remember last season when I was posting some of the results from NCGA Thursday Team Match play it was not uncommon to see 7 to 8 of the 12 members of a team shoot under their handicaps. What are the odds of that happening in stroke play?
April 4th, 2010 at 10:34 amThis is very interesting and a subject that nags at many golfers yet after all this work you say that it only effected/changed 1.5%. My reaction is that this is so low a % it might be nothing more then a stastical abnormality versus a true stastic.
You say many were complaining yet after all the hard work, all you could find was 1.5%. Does this say it is not the problem many say it is or does it say your guidelines/structure were not tight enough?
June 17th, 2010 at 9:43 am